• Archr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    12 hours ago

    This whole article/blog post reads as “How dare this person follow the law. ;(”

    I really don’t understand the pushback on this one person for submitting the change request. When it is the lawmaker that put this law into place that we should be criticizing. The post repeatedly uses how the contributer said that the change was “hilariously pointless and ineffective.” As some sort of gotcha as to why the merge should not have been accepted but does not explain why the maintainers should not follow the law other than “law bad”.

    It also consistently calls out the various peoples’ places of work and experience as some sort of boogeyman for why they should not be allowed to contribute to open source. If these people were universally accepted to be bad actors in the community then they would not be accepted as reviewers for these projects. This just attacks their character to try to prove a point.

    • blueryth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Let’s just ignore whether there’s any moral or ethical arguments about legal compliance: What law is this man complying with? This is not a law that governs him. He is volunteering, and not compelled. There is no sanctity of law at play here.

      • Archr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Are you implying that only people who are affected by something are allowed to contribute to open source projects? If this were some nobody developer in California would that really make you any more likely to accept that this merge request is okay?

        • blueryth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 hours ago

          There’s no subtext. This man has no obligation to this law, so “How dare this person follow the law. ;(” isn’t relevant. This man is not following a law, he is simply going about his day. He is volunteering, and not compelled. There is no sanctity of law at play here.

          But, to play ball, yes. If a person who would otherwise receive punishment were to do this, I would take that into account. That is not the case here.